(b) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint intimidation);

(c) special intimidation;

(d) Injury;

2. (a) b. c. o. d. Da-○ (in 92 years, south)

[Defendant-Appellee]

Attorney Gangnam-gu, ○ (for the purpose of Defendant’s ○○)

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of special intimidation on June 26, 2017 against Defendant New ○○ on June 26, 2017 is not guilty.

On December 10, 2015, the Defendant, at the Incheon District Court, sentenced four months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of interference with business, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence in the Incheon Detention House on March 20, 2016, and on April 23, 2015, the Defendant New ○ was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc.) at the Incheon District Court on April 23, 2015, and completed the execution of the sentence from the Seocheon Prison Prison on February 6, 2017.

【Criminal Facts】

1. The Korea Airports Corporation established pursuant to the Korea Airports Corporation Act to efficiently construct, manage, and operate airports, and to carry out projects to foster and support the aviation industry, the Seoul Regional Headquarters of the Korea Airport Corporation established under its jurisdiction is in charge of overall management and operation of airport facilities, airfield facilities, parking lots in airports, and commercial roads in the Kimpo Airport. Among them, parking agency services provided to users of Kimpo Airport, domestic and international shipping parking lots, vehicle delivery places in domestic and international line-based international shipping parking lots, vehicle delivery places in the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, vehicle maintenance, and maintenance of order in the area, etc. of the Kimpo Airport Airport Terminal, and the Seoul Regional Headquarters of the Korea Airport Corporation entrusted the management and operation to A (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) on January 1, 2017.

The Defendants, with the knowledge that approximately 20,000 users depart from the airport of Korea each month, secure a parking place outside the airport with the knowledge that they will use a parking lot or use a parking agency service, and pretend that they are regular companies that established the Internet homepage and entered into a contract for parking agency with the Korea Airports Corporation, which promised to provide parking agency through the Internet, as if they were regular companies, to acquire economic benefits such as providing parking agency services to the users who recruited, and receiving the fees for parking agency services. Accordingly, the Defendants, ○○○ did not take charge of operating the ○○ parking lot in order to take charge of operating the ○○○○ and the ○○○○○○○ International Airport Airport's departure from the airport, and did not take charge of the 'road parking agency' in the process of entering into a contract for parking agency with the Korea Airports Corporation, and did not take charge of the 'road parking agency' in order to take charge of the 'road parking agency' as well as the 'road parking agency' in the process of executing the 'road parking agency service'.

2. Details of crime;

A. Obstruction of the Defendants’ business

From May 19, 2017 to July 20, 2017, the Defendants provided parking agency services to the users of the Kimpo Airport who promised to depart from the official parking route prior to the departure of the Korea Airports Corporation and the parking agency services on the roads prior to the departure of the Korean Airport located in the Gangseo-gu Seoul 1373 Airport, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, which is located in the 886-dong Fire Prevention Zone. However, the companies that actually concluded the entrustment contract with the Korea Airports Corporation and the parking agency services on the Internet homepage would be the damaged companies, and as such, they would be the regular companies that concluded the contract with the Korea Airports Corporation and the parking agency services. In addition, the Defendants provided parking agency services to the users as if they are the employees of the victimized companies, who are regular companies.

In addition, the defendant, at the same time and place as above, had the employees of the "○○ Parking Lot," including the defendant's new ○○○" parking company and other private parking agency employees living in the area exclusive for the mobility disadvantaged prior to the departure of the international ship, and used the place as the place of business, or the width of the road is operating in the way of de facto occupying the road in the way of harming or shaking the 'parking for the vehicle driving by the departure site users', and interfere with the passage of the vehicle passing through the vehicle. In addition, it interfered with the traffic safety and the maintenance of order of the damaged company's international shipping place prior to the departure of the international ship by failing to comply with the request of the new ○○, the head of the headquarters belonging to the victimized company for traffic safety and the maintenance of airport order.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the entrusted business of Kimpo Airport parking of the damaged company by fraud, and at the same time interfered with the business of traffic safety and maintenance of order related to the airport roads of the victimized company by force.

B. On June 16, 2017, the Defendants’ violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint intimidation): around 18: 44: Around 1373, the second floor of the departure line at the Kimpo Airport located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Airport, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, the second floor of the departure line at the 1373 Airport, to the Defendant New ○○, the head of the victimized company, was the victim New ○○ (the age of 61) who was the head of the victimized company, was flicking the said victim, and was flicked with “flick flick, flick flick, flick flick, and flick flick.” Defendant New ○○ was located close to the victim so that the victim might come into a flick flick. The Defendants made joint intimidation.

C. Special intimidation by Defendant New ○○

On June 14, 2017, around 00, the Defendant: (a) discovered the victim ○○ (the age of 67) of the damaged company affiliated with the damaged company, which was driven by the airport users of the second floor of the Kimpo Airport International Airport located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1373, in front of the departure of the second floor of the Kimpo Airport 1373, in order to commission the Defendant to park on behalf of the Defendant; (b) rapidly changed the main direction of the said vehicle to the parking line by the parking line; and (c) rapid change to the main direction of the said vehicle to the parking line by the vehicle as soon as the victim would receive. Accordingly, the Defendant threatened the victim by using a dangerous object.

D. Bodily injuring Defendant New ○○

On July 17, 2017: around 30, the Defendant, at around 17:30, the second floor of the Kimpo Airport International Airport located in Gangseo-gu, Seoul, Fire-Fighting 886, and the victim, who belongs to the "airport parking lot" affiliated with the "airport parking lot" affiliated with another employee of the "Korea Parking lot in which the Defendant works," and the above victim, who agreed to park on behalf of the company, did a conflict with the other employee of the "Korea Parking lot in which the Defendant is working," and the above victim, "We are our reservation of YY, Hah, Hah, Hah, Hahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh". The victim refused to do so, and the defendant caused the victim's assaulting the victim, thereby bucking the victim to the right, so doing so.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

○○○○: Articles 314(1) and 313 of the Criminal Act; Article 2(2)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Articles 283(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 284, 283(1), 314(1), 313, and 257(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 2(2)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Articles 283(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

Defendants: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendants: Imprisonment Decision

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Defendants: Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: (a) The reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act are as follows: (b) the victim injured by Defendant New ○○○ for the reason of sentencing does not want the punishment; and (c) the Defendants led to the confession or reflect of the crime. However, it is inevitable to strictly punish the Defendants in light of the following: (a) the Defendants committed each crime during the period of repeated crime; (b) the commission of the crime was violent and the number of victims; and (c) the damage recovery was most difficult. In addition, the Defendants’ age, character and behavior, circumstances after the crime; and (d) the sentencing conditions indicated in the

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

On June 26, 2017: around 00 on June 26, 201: Around 00, Defendant 1: (a) was driving a refluent vehicle used in the “○○ parking lot,” which is a private company, on the front of the departure site of the Kimpo Airport located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Airport located in Gangseo-gu Seoul, Gangseo-gu, Seoul. (b) discovered the victim ○○○ (e.g., 56 years old) of the damaged company’s affiliated company, who was carrying out a parking guide for parking on behalf of the vehicle at the exclusive parking zone of the victimized company; (c) rapidly changed the driving direction of the said vehicle operating the vehicle following the parking zone to the parking zone to the parking zone; and (d) carried out the body of the said victim as soon as the said vehicle would receive the victim. Accordingly, the Defendant threatened the victim by using the vehicle, which is a dangerous object.

2. Determination:

In light of the fact that the Defendant’s new witness, ○○, and ○○○ testified that the Defendant’s new witness was on board at the same time and at the same place as the stated in the facts charged, and that the investigative agency stated the Defendant’s new witness as the driver of the vehicle as the driver of the vehicle was only the same, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor corresponding to the above facts charged cannot be trusted and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Thus, the above facts charged against Defendant ○○ constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, it is pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.